Times of Trenton Letters to the Editor - June 10

I applaud Assemblyman Wayne DeAngelo (D-Hamilton) for his recognition that there needs to be an easing of the recall process for elected officials (“Lawmaker: Ease recall rules — DeAngelo to offer bill that reduces ‘daunting’ burden on petitioners,” May 10).

There have been cases of Republicans and Democrats that proved to residents that the recall effort is still difficult despite statewide awareness that some of our elected officials are not living up to the highest standards of their job.

Assemblyman DeAngelo is in touch with voter concerns and their right to exercise their democratic right to remove an official if the voters believe that their representative’s performance is potentially illegal or ethically questionable.

Being a military veteran who has fought for the freedoms of this country, I would like to exercise my freedoms to keep those who serve the people and remove those who do not. I thank Assemblyman DeAngelo for his continued support.

-- Gary Thompson,
Hamilton

U.S. budget busters can be cut back

Early in President Barack Obama’s term in office, I believed it would take his whole term, possibly two, to make a dent in the problems left to him by the previous administration. But maybe the problems are more extensive than were realized at the time.

Left with a broken economy, we have to take steps and return to basics to solve the problems. In doing so, we have to cut away the fat and stick to the essentials when it comes to spending.

With practically the whole world against it, we fought two unpopular wars at a time when we least needed it financially. Besides, fighting terrorists should be a job for the United Nations.

Another expense we incur is having out troops stationed in more than 100 countries. Who said we have to be the policemen of the world?

Speaking of the U.N., I question why the United States puts up a great percentage of the cost of running it. The expense should be more evenly distributed among the member nations.

These are just three areas that are a huge drain on our economy. I’m sure our experienced representatives in Washington, D.C., can think of more ways to save money.

-- John Pinelli Jr.,
Princeton

Health-care exchange would benefit everybody

Gov. Chris Christie’s veto of the health-care exchange is very problematic (“Christie vetoes ‘health exchange’ — State should wait for Supreme Court decision to impose mandates, he says,” May 11) because now there is no end in sight to the pandemic of New Jersey’s uninsured.

New Jersey has 1.3 million people without health insurance. If Gov. Christie does not try to insure these people, it will only continue to lead to higher costs and premiums for individuals who have health insurance, because they will have to continue to pay for the individuals without health-care insurance when they visit emergency rooms for simple check-ups and other procedures.

Gov. Christie should try to implement the health-care exchange, because it will not only make the lives better for the individuals who already have insurance, but also for the individuals who do not.

Health exchange can be a great success for New Jersey and her citizens because it will give people the medical attention they need at costs that are both affordable and consistent.

-- James Fasola,
Mullica Hill

Some have no business running a country

The letter writer’s sample of presidents who had business experience (“Giving voters the business,” June 7), Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, should be expanded to the last 100 years and three others added to his list: Warren G. Harding (Teapot Dome scandal), Herbert Hoover (the Great Depression) and Harry Truman (bankrupt haberdasher).

With the exception of Truman’s, those years were the worst economic times in the last century. There is nothing in our historical record to support the notion that business experience prepares a person to manage the success of the entire economy and all Americans. Success in business comes from managing one company, a limited number of workers and stockholders. Business executives have a critical contribution to make to the nation’s economy, but perhaps we must learn from history and not risk the economy of the nation to one.

Keep business executives where we need them: in business

-- Jane S. DeLung,
Lawrence

One of the costs of freedom of choice

The writer of “Bitter battle over big sweet drinks” (June 6) states, “I would argue that society has a right to regulate activities that impose a heavy burden on the public treasury.”

If people believe that activities that put a heavy burden on the public treasury should be banned, then they must believe that driving should be banned. AAA says accidents cost $164.2 billion each year, which comes to an annual per person cost of $1,051, and traffic congestion costs the nation an additional $67.6 billion each year, or $430 per person.

Banned activities would also have to include drinking alcohol. Alcohol use costs an estimated $360 billion dollars per year in health-care, business and criminal justice costs.

What about people who block needle exchange programs? The cost of a clean syringe averages about 10 cents. Based on lifetime HIV treatment costs of $367,000 per person (2009 dollars), caring for persons who become infected will add $450 billion to the burdened treasury.

How about people who decide not to get preventative care, e.g. a colonoscopy, which averages $2,000 to $3,000, and then get colon cancer, with treatment costs of up to $125,000 per patient, adding additional billions to the burdened treasury?

Everyone does something that adds to the burden. Fatigue costs $198 billion from lost productivity and accidents, and the list goes on and on.

Where does the banning end? Again, we sit by and let government dictate our behavior, especially with the knowledge that this ban will have no real effect on obesity.

What a good time to remember the words of Mahatma Gandhi: “Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err,” or Libertarian Jacob Hornberger: “If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all.”

-- Mario J. Brescio Jr.,
Hamilton

Birth control mandate is an outrage

I support the 43 Catholic dioceses and organizations that are bringing suit against the Obama administration (“Catholics sue on birth control mandate,” May 22) to stop the outrage of the Health and Human Services mandate.

Religious organizations and their members should not be forced to violate their beliefs. Many people have said, “What’s the big deal? It’s just birth control!” Well, it is a big deal. Here’s why.

First, the mandate actually defines what a church is and what ministries it can perform. I thought there was a separation of church and state guaranteed in the Constitution. If government can define what a church is and what it can do, where is the separation? If a government agency cannot erect a religious display on public property, why can it determine the parameters of religion itself?

Second, the mandate exempts entities that employ and serve only people of the same faith. Well, there goes Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital, Catholic Charities, and many other Catholic-run organizations that help the poor and disadvantaged. I question what happens when they are forced to shut down rather than go against their beliefs. Is this loss an acceptable price to pay for free birth control? I think not.